Goetz v. Wescast Industries Inc., 2014 HRTO 979

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mark Goetz

Applicant

-and-

Wescast Industries Inc.; Alison Letteau; Jeff McKee and Robert McKenzie

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 4, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 979

Indexed as: Goetz v. Wescast Industries Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"),.

2In their Response ("Form 2") the respondents requested the deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of a grievance filed on behalf of the applicant. The applicant responded to this request in his Reply ("Form 3") asserting that the grievance relied on by the respondents filed by the applicant's trade union. The respondents wrote to the Tribunal to subsequently taking issue with the applicant's brief submission and advised that the applicant had filed three further individual grievances related to the issues raised in the Application. As the applicant had not responded to these submissions the Tribunal offered the applicant an opportunity to respond. The applicant filed a Reply (Form 3) which addresses a number of issues raised in the Response. The applicant does not dispute the respondents' characterization of the grievances filed in respect of the applicant's workplace dispute. However it is not clear whether or not the applicant opposes deferral.

3The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case.

4However the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).

5In this case there is no substantial dispute that the issues raised in the Application are the subject of grievances filed by or on behalf of the applicant. The applicant explains that he filed this Application to preserve his rights and avoid any issues of delay; however he does not dispute that the facts and issues in dispute in the two proceedings are largely the same. In my view having considered the materials filed by the parties the orderly administration of justice favours deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

6The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process. The Request for Order During Proceedings made by the applicant may be dealt with by the Tribunal if the Application is brought back on.

7I am not seized of this case.